Outing other Exmos or exmo sympathisers

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello Daniel,

For Jersey Girl: I've never heard of anybody "outing" anyone because that person had "doubts," let alone of any ecclesiastical directive to do so. Nor, as a bishop, would I welcome the kind of snitch-like behavior that you rightly term "cultish." I think you're too trusting of the portrayal of Mormonism that you get from some on this board. At the least, the church depicted by several of the posters here bears little resemblance to the community that I know.

Nowhere on this board or any other board have I implied or asserted that the church maintains any sort of directive to "out" people. My impressions were formed long before I began posting on this board and have little, if anything, to do with posters on this board.

They come mainly from the posts I've read on ZLMB and FAIR, now MAD. I would be remiss in not saying that my first notice of this came from reading exit stories on RFM. The posts on ZLMB and FAIR, now MAD, simply bore those out.

Why do you attempt to tie my impressions to this board, Daniel? The posts in question were made by active LDS to either doubting or critical LDS posters.

[_harmony]

Evenin', Dan. Slumming?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Nowhere on this board or any other board have I implied or asserted that the church maintains any sort of directive to "out" people. My impressions were formed long before I began posting on this board and have little, if anything, to do with posters on this board.

They come mainly from the posts I've read on ZLMB and FAIR, now MAD. I would be remiss in not saying that my first notice of this came from reading exit stories on RFM. The posts on ZLMB and FAIR, now MAD, simply bore those out.

Please pardon my misunderstanding, in that case. I was under the impression that you thought a "cultish" atmosphere of "outing" people simply because they have "doubts" was somehow characteristic of Mormonism.

I'll tell you, though, despite the fact that you didn't ask, where I would want to know: I've read several posts on another message board from people who claim to hold responsible leadership positions in the Church and to be using their status to seek, very gently, to undermine the faith of other members of the Church. (One that I remember specifically claimed to be a high councilor who regularly had the missionaries to his house, expressly for the purpose of trying to plant doubts in their minds; he explicitly noted that, since he's a member of a high council, the missionaries would never suspect what he was up to, and would have their guard down.)

Now, I don't know whether these stories are actually true or not. But, if they are, I find them repulsive. And I would find the behavior of the person telling the story equally repulsive if he were a priest, a minister, a rabbi, or an imam. If I knew the identity of someone playing such a game -- not merely having "doubts" -- I would happily pass it on so that he or she could be deprived as soon as possible of the ecclesiastical status that permits the game to be played.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Evenin', Dan. Slumming?

Avoiding work. Leaving town tomorrow. Lots of bishop stuff in the meantime. Need to finish a paper before I leave. Down to nitpicking details. Boring.

But also tired of Scratch's continual slanders.

[_Jersey Girl]

Nowhere on this board or any other board have I implied or asserted that the church maintains any sort of directive to "out" people. My impressions were formed long before I began posting on this board and have little, if anything, to do with posters on this board.

They come mainly from the posts I've read on ZLMB and FAIR, now MAD. I would be remiss in not saying that my first notice of this came from reading exit stories on RFM. The posts on ZLMB and FAIR, now MAD, simply bore those out.

Please pardon my misunderstanding, in that case. I was under the impression that you thought a "cultish" atmosphere of "outing" people simply because they have "doubts" was somehow characteristic of Mormonism.

I'll tell you, though, despite the fact that you didn't ask, where I would want to know: I've read several posts on another message board from people who claim to hold responsible leadership positions in the Church and to be using their status to seek, very gently, to undermine the faith of other members of the Church. (One that I remember specifically claimed to be a high councilor who regularly had the missionaries to his house, expressly for the purpose of trying to plant doubts in their minds; he explicitly noted that, since he's a member of a high council, the missionaries would never suspect what he was up to, and would have their guard down.)

Now, I don't know whether these stories are actually true or not. But, if they are, I find them repulsive. And I would find the behavior of the person telling the story equally repulsive if he were a priest, a minister, a rabbi, or an imam. If I knew the identity of someone playing such a game -- not merely having "doubts" -- I would happily pass it on so that he or she could be deprived as soon as possible of the ecclesiastical status that permits the game to be played.

I would agree with you, Daniel, regarding the person in a position of ecclesiastical authority specifically using their position to undermine the church or the faith of it's members.

Hope you're well...

[_harmony]

I've known GoodK's father for roughly twenty years. There's no secret about GoodK's atheism; GoodK's father has been fully aware of it for a long time, as have I. That wasn't the issue. When I saw GoodK posting mocking words about his father on a public message board, though, and realized who GoodK must be (since his father had sent the same letter about GoodK's critically ill sister to me that GoodK was lampooning here), I was shocked and appalled. I went back and forth. I didn't want to add to my friend's stress, since having a daughter hospitalized at death's door was already horrible, but I reasoned that, if it were my son who was making fun of me as a superstitious fanatic and a blowhard on a public message board while my daughter (his sister) was fighting for her life, I would want to know. So, finally, after several hours of internal debate, I sent a note to GoodK's father calling his attention to GoodK's comments about him. I also apologized to GoodK's father if my action was inappropriate.

I flatly deny any such meddling. I wouldn't do it, I can't do it, and I haven't done it.

These two paragraphs are at odds with each other. By contacting GoodK's father, you meddled in GoodK's world. What other word would you use?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thank you, Jersey Girl. I'm well. One of my sons was commissioned as a naval officer today. That was nice.

But I've got a lot of things to do before I fly off to Washington DC on Monday, and then on to Israel and Jordan on Wednesday. I enjoy travelling once I'm underway, but I always wonder, just before I leave, why I ever agree to do it. It's such a massive interruption of projects that I'm working on.

These two paragraphs are at odds with each other.

Not really. Scratch claims that I smear people, try to ruin their careers, etc.

I don't.

I wasn't claiming, though, that I have no human interactions and never affect any other person. I certainly hope that I do.

By contacting GoodK's father, you meddled in GoodK's world. What other word would you use?

I passed some information on to a friend about what someone close to him was saying about him in a public place -- as I hope he would have done for me, had the situations been reversed. I wasn't meddling in GoodK's life; I was being a friend to a friend. Who is, by the way, still a friend.

[_harmony]

Thank you, Jersey Girl. I'm well. One of my sons was commissioned as a naval officer today. That was nice.

But I've got a lot of things to do before I fly off to Washington DC on Monday, and then on to Israel and Jordan on Wednesday. I enjoy travelling once I'm underway, but I always wonder, just before I leave, why I ever agree to do it. It's such a massive interruption of projects that I'm working on.

These two paragraphs are at odds with each other.

Not really. Scratch claims that I smear people, try to ruin their careers, etc.

I don't.

I wasn't claiming, though, that I have no human interactions and never affect any other person. I certainly hope that I do.

By contacting GoodK's father, you meddled in GoodK's world. What other word would you use?

I passed some information on to a friend about what someone close to him was saying about him in a public place -- as I hope he would have done for me, had the situations been reversed. I wasn't meddling in GoodK's life; I was being a friend to a friend. Who is, by the way, still a friend.

It wasn't your friend's life I was referring to, when I said "meddling". It was GoodK's. What from one perspective could be perceived as helpfulness from another's perspective could be considered meddling. Or don't you agree? Perhaps you didn't look at your actions from GoodK's perspective?

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you prefer to view it as "meddling," you're certainly free to do so. At least two or three others here will, too, so you'll have company.

I understand that passing on information to a father about his son's misbehavior can be viewed as "meddling," and that the son will almost certainly view it that way. But if I didn't know that my son was doing drugs or abusing alcohol, I would want to know. In fact, I would regard a friend who knew about the problem and nevertheless didn't tell me as not much of a friend. Now, obviously, mocking one's father behind his back on a public message board at a time of family crisis isn't quite the same thing as driving drunk or using cocaine. Still, I would want to know. Perhaps you wouldn't.

Decent people can have differing views about what my response should have been. I think I've said enough, though, to indicate that this was not a case of vindictively trying to "rat out" GoodK to his father on account of GoodK's atheism. (Obviously, it will never be enough for those who are convinced that everything I say is a lie and everything I do is unethical. But people like that aren't my audience here. I'm not that stupid.)

[_Moniker]

Dr. Peterson, I still adore your avatar. I laugh every time I see it.

I think we all make choices that some will think poorly of. We all do the best we can. I certainly wouldn't have done what you did in the circumstances, yet, there are other circumstances that if I felt someone might be truly harming themselves that I would feel compelled morally to take action. It would have to be a clear dire case, for me. Yet, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you felt it was the moral thing to do.


~~~~~~~

I know this won't be popular opinion on this thread, yet, I immediately thought of it as I first saw it pop up: DCP contacted a family friend about his son's activities on a message board. GoodK did not share something in confidence that DCP went and "tattled" out. Yet, there's another poster that posts here that was shared something in confidence and later made that private conversation public --that private conversation is now quite the rage on both boards -- something that probably was not something that the one who supposedly made the statements wanted to be made known and is now vehemently denying.

Is there a double standard here?